Religion & American Law

Many American households display a similar iconic photo in a widely visible spot in their home: a framed picture of their high school graduate walking across the stage in cap and gown, accepting their diploma. But for graduates of Brookfield Central and Brookfield East Public High Schools in southern Wisconsin, this proudly displayed memory contains another focal point: a 20-foot tall cross above the stage.

Brookfield’s graduation had traditionally been held in the school’s gymnasium, which was much too small and too hot for the graduating class, their families, and their guests to sit comfortably during the ceremony. In 2000, the students requested to hold the ceremony in a nearby nondenominational evangelical Christian church because the venue was much larger and more comfortable than any space the school could provide. The senior class approved the venue change by a majority vote, and the superintendant, who happened to be a member of this church, agreed to hold the graduation in the church’s huge theater, on the grounds that the church provided more space, amenities, and convenience than the school’s gym, and allowed students to invite more guests than they would have if the ceremony was held at other local, secular venues.

Students and families from the school and Americans for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit arguing that holding graduation ceremonies in a place of worship violates the Constitution and makes some attendees feel uncomfortable, and requested a court order to force the schools to find an alternate, secular venue. This week, a three-judge panel of the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that as long as the graduation ceremony didn’t hold religious elements, there was no government endorsement of religion, and therefore no violation of the Religion Clause.

Walking across the stage at high school graduation to accept a diploma is considered a rite of passage in American schools, and forcing public school students in a multi-cultural and multi-religious town to choose between asking their families to sit in a mega-church to watch them accept their diploma under a giant cross or skip this momentous occasion all together is not Constitutional. The 7^th Circuit Court found that as long as the ceremony did not contain religious messages or religious pressures, no endorsement of religion was taking place. Essentially, they found that as long as religious paraphernalia was only visible and present but not explicitly mentioned, there was no problem.

But, with this ruling, there is a huge problem. This church, although large, air-conditioned, and “convenient”, is a widely accepted and extremely visibly a place of worship. Pews contained Bibles, prayers, and hymnals, and a giant cross above the stage. One student claimed that the ceremony, which did not mention any denomination or the church itself, was completely secular, and therefore an appropriate venue. But since when are courts okay with the presence of religious paraphernalia or venues for supposedly secular settings as long as they aren’t “explicitly mentioned”? Would it be okay for a schoolteacher to hold class in a room of a nearby church simply because the church’s multipurpose room, while decorated with Bible verses, was larger than the school’s? What if a Judge held Court in the Synagogue down the street because the Court was overscheduled and overcrowded? According to this Court’s reasoning all of these situations could be acceptable because no religious messages are explicitly stated or endorsed—the groups are simply using the venue out of “convenience”, with no religious intent. The consequences of allowing a public high school to hold a secular graduation in a church for convenience reasons are somewhat limited in scope, but the consequences of allowing this "convenience" excuse for violating the Religion Clause to become precedent has dangerous implications because oftentimes, secularity does require extra effort, and these standards should be upheld for future cases where a lot more is sacrificed in the name of convenience.

Verbal messages and readings, while important, are not everything—no one can claim that simply omitting religious speech makes holding a ceremony in a church non-religious. Sitting in an empty church in silence, even while no one else is present, is still a religious activity because churches are still an obvious place of worship, regardless of what the venue is being used for. What if you were planning your Muslim wedding and the Imam tried to convince you that it would make more sense to hold your ceremony at the Catholic Church down the street because it’s bigger, and air-conditioned? True, it’s not a Mosque, but don’t worry—they wouldn’t say or read anything Catholic, so no one will notice the venue at all…right?

After September 11, 2001 many found it difficult to show signs of hope, or optimism after the tragic events that had occurred earlier that day. However, during the removal of what remained of the World Trade buildings on September 13, 2001 one man, Frank Silecchia, found something that would instill faith and hope in many Americans. What he found, was two metal beams twisted into what appeared to be a cross. This cross has remained at Ground Zero for the past ten years, and if everything goes accordingly, is to be relocated in the 9/11 Memorial Museum in the near future. However, the American Atheists organization is protesting the inclusion of this religious symbol stating the necessity for “absolute separation of government and religion”. The organization claims that adding the cross to the museum is a “’repugnant’ attempt to promote religion on public land”.

This cross, has been at Ground Zero for the past ten years. It has been a symbol of hope and faith for many of those who have visited the site, whether or not they see it as a symbol of God’s existence. Now, this organization of atheists is claiming the placement of the cross within the 9/11 Memorial Museum would be unconstitutional and is an uncalled for mixture of religion and state. In their presented case, the American Atheist organization protests the inclusion of the cross unless equal space is provided for Non-Christian memorials within the museum as well.

I believe that the cross should be included in the 9/11 Memorial Museum. It is not as if it was man-made, but rather was formed naturally amidst such a tragic event. Also, while looking into this topic, I came across many quotes from those who cleaned Ground Zero, saying that they cut mini forms of this cross from the rubble at the site not because they were Christian, but rather because they felt that it gave them a purpose. It is not as if the museum would be favoring Christians, it is that no other religiously affiliated symbol was formed during the fall of the towers. The cross can be seen as a sign from God for those who choose to believe so, but it can also be seen simply as a sign of hope. It has been an important part of Ground Zero for the past ten years and should continue to represent September 11, 2001.

The American Atheist organization has a reasonable claim, but how do you represent your community that prides itself upon believing in nothing? Would all, what they see as, non-religiously affiliated parts of the museum be representing their space? This museum is about what happened on September 11, 2001 not about what people believe to be politically correct and fair to all. This metal cross was formed on September 11^th, making it a part of history. Also, it is not as if you have to walk by the cross in order to enter the museum. If you do not agree with it being a part of the memorial, do not go visit that section. I would think atheists would be more content knowing that they were not forced to see the cross seeing as it will have its own section of the museum, whereas when it is the center of Ground Zero, it is a little more difficult to ignore.

Following the publication of Truthout’s controversial report, the Air Force suspended its war ethics training for new nuclear missile launch officers after concerns by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation were raised by 31 missile launch officers. The mandatory briefing had been taught by military chaplains at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California for nearly 20 years. The issue at stake here is whether the US Air Force is violating the First Amendment’s establishment clause by citing the Old and New Testament as moral support for warfare in ethics training.

According to David Smith, the Air Force Education Training Command spokesman, the briefing was intended to be within an academic setting which would facilitate discussion. Nevertheless, as presented in a PowerPoint presentation war, exclusively represented through Christian doctrine, is good and righteous. As cited in the PowerPoint slides, St. Augustine’s “Qualifications for Just War” are to “avenge or to avert evil; to protect the innocent and restore moral social order.” Another section of the presentation states that in “Revelation 19:11 Jesus is the mighty warrior,” implying that Jesus himself is a proponent of warfare. These quotations from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament not only are Sparknotes versions of the original texts, but they also impose Christian doctrine on officers in training to be a “disciple of Christ,” a blatant establishment of religion through the federal government.

The Air Force, understandably, wants assurance that officers will be willing to launch nuclear weapons at command, despite the officer’s moral reservations. This raises the fundamental question of whether or not a nuclear weapons officer can ever be ready to fulfill the duties of his or her position, knowing that their action will kill thousands of non-combatants. Though I cannot speak for all the officers present in the ethics debriefing, I know that this training could never prepare me for a job that I would never want to do. One has to ask oneself the question, at that moment, do you believe in the mission?

Through the ethics training, the Air Force was attempting to have officers premeditate their decision. However, by presenting religious iconography which augments the concept of St. Augustine’s “Christian Just War Theory,” in addition to quoted scripture within the training slides, officers were mandatorily subject to an establishment of Christian theology as inexorably linked with the decision to partake in nuclear warfare. Moreover, the Air Force education training assumes that all officers need Christian justification for their service. Directly following the PowerPoint presentation, missile officers in-training, signed a legal document which stated that they will not hesitate to launch the nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) if commanded by the President of the United States. Since the officers signed the legal document after exposure to Christian theology, as interpreted by an Air Force chaplain, arguably, this document violates the no religious test mandate of the Constitution which states, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to….public Trust under the United States” (Article VI, Section 3). Yet, the boundaries of the military are not necessarily clear due to bureaucratic institutions so is this training a violation of the 1st Amendment since it is funded by federal tax dollars? Despite one’s answer to this question, I am sure that all can agree that religious teaching within the military creates a dangerous precedent which may enervate the establishment clause in general.

Rye Playland is typically an amusement park full of fun and excitement, but when a group of Muslim visitors were not allowed on some rides due to their religious head garb (hijabs), the day turned violent and angry with 15 arrests and 2 felony assault charges.

A group of Muslim visitors came to the park as a celebration marking the end of Eid al-Fitr. However, their celebration was cut short when some employees would not allow some women to ride some of the attractions unless they agreed to take off their head dress. When the women became upset at this rule, the men that accompanied them quickly started a brawl with the employees, claiming religious discrimination.

However, if the visitors had looked at the amusement parks rules, they would have seen that no one, regardless of religious affiliation, could wear any sort of hat or headpiece while on the rides. This rule is in place for specific safety reasons. An important aspect of this argument is that the women were never asked to take off their hijabs while walking through the park, and it was only when their head dresses could potentially be a risk to other visitors that they were asked not to wear them. Also, it should be known that there was a sign not only at the entrance of the park itself, but also online and next to every ride. The rule as posted online states, "Hats must be secured, and jackets/sweaters must be worn properly and not around the waist while on a ride. Some rides do not allow backpacks, purses or head gear of any kind."

I believe that the minute that something becomes potentially dangerous to others, it is the amusement park’s responsibility to take away as many of these potential risks as possible. Asking these women to take off their head dresses before getting on some rides has absolutely nothing to do with religious discrimination, as similar requests would have been made of anyone wearing such a head piece, no matter their religious affiliation.

The Muslim group claimed that they were not told about this rule, however, the park insists that it was made explicitly clear to the groups organizer. Westchester County Parks Deputy Commissioner Peter Tartaglia claims that the park even set up a refund booth for anyone who might object to the policy on head gear. Instead of lashing out at the park employees simply trying to do their jobs, they should have tried talking to a supervisor in a more acceptable way. Violence is certainly not the answer.

I believe that the group of Muslim visitors should have taken a step back, so that they could understand the safety concerns of their head dress, instead of taking such a personal approach. Rye Playland was not discriminating against any religion, but rather they were trying to keep themselves from having any unnecessary liabilities. It is also my belief that the group of visitors were given ample opportunity to assess whether they wanted to stay at the park. If they feel like they were not given enough information beforehand, then perhaps they should look internally at their groups organizer, instead of lashing out against the amusement park itself.

In this situation, there was a clear disconnect between the park and this group of visitors. Perhaps the park employees should have made sure that the head gear rule was relayed to the group as they entered the park, instead of relying on the groups organizer. However, it is my belief that there was absolutely no reason for this group to act out in such a way. They should have assessed the situation and realized that no one was trying to inhibit their religious freedom, but rather, they were protecting the safety of all visitors, including themselves.